|
|
Posted by Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 08/09/07 20:51
Tim Streater wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
<biggaschnippage>
>> We are saying that an author should not use a technology on a public
>> site that will render the site useless for a fair chunk of visitors.
>
> Depends if the author cares (or needs to care), I suppose. They can
> always put some caveats on the page somewhere. That said, I can
> obviously imagine that if the site is aimed at getting more and more
> visitors it's important that it work for a wider set.
Caveats might work, in some circumstances. There was a poster in one of
these groups the other day, asking for some assistance on a site that
relied on JavaScript to display everything but the header logo and the
footer. To a visitor with JavaScript unavailable, the page was no more
than that logo, and a long, wide, empty blue box about three viewports
long. No navigation either.
> But then I lurk here, and I see it said that:
>
> 1) Javascript evil
> 2) Frames evil
> 3) iframes evil
>
> and I'm never quite sure whether that's because:
>
> 1) the statements made pertain to a particular set of circumstances
> 2) these things really *are* evil and I am a bozo for being ignorant of
> some other technique which solves all my problems pronto.
1. Ok for fluff but not important stuff.
2. Google for "frames are evil" <g>
3. May be ok if for your own stuff (not capturing someone else's page)
and not too important.
> Hence my question.
Understood.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|